I don't know if you are a troll or not but, regarding your "they are kids" post?

At 19 I was a married homeowner - 18 is considered the age of legal majority.

If your point was the younger brother may have been swayed by the elder (who was a married father), fine. However? Its fairly common practice to teach our children by the time they have rudimentary eye/hand coordination "don't hit/hurt/bite" and so on. These two "kids" killed and maimed people, period.

I'd also like to ask you this - "kids" younger than 19 go to wars we start - if they are kids, then maybe we should up the age of enlistment to - what? 30? Is that adult enough to know/learn how to not kill innocents, on purpose, with explosives? or is that just old enough to lose your legs when kids make mistakes?

" Kids" my happy, healthy wiggling toes - this had little to do with their legally adult age.

snowshovel:Except that wasn't part of the original plan. If they wanted to do that, they would've bombed the start of the race, then did a happy dance yelling "Hey look at me! I did it!" as police swarmed the area.

The cop confrontation thing only happened when they realized that their carefully crafted plan "to blow random people up" (which, really, is the easy part of the plan), didn't include "and get away with it" beyond trying to resume life as normal. They had absolutely no intent on confronting anybody. At least until it became obvious that they were toast.

A true "terrorist" (for whatever you want that to mean), does have an exit strategy (along with a way or means to get out their message); whether it's as simple as "suicide mission", or something a little more complicated involving passports and a dufflebag full of cash or some friendly operatives who you can use as safehouses.

I read someone that equated these idiots with arsonists; they do something that causes damage, but then sort of hang around to watch the results. I think that is a good comparison in this case, from everything I've read so far.

Regardless, it obviously doesn't bring back anyone who is dead or injured.

I read that the younger one was at a party a couple of nights after the bombing. I don't know why they stuck around, especially considering the younger one didn't even wear sunglasses or anything to hide his identity. They could have been anywhere by now if they hadn't been such dumbasses.

Voiceofreason01:doglover:I'm not a killer. Those "kids" on the other hand put a shrapnel bomb next to a child in a crowd at a public event then shot at cops and killed each-other. They're very much bloodthirsty killers, to the tee.

So maybe we should hold the one still alive without trial so that he can be beaten by the police and sexually assaulted in jail. Which is what a lot of people(even some who should know better) have been suggesting. Sounds like justice to me. Something terrible happened and this kid should face the consequences but we also need to respect his rights and give him a fair trial. Seeking revenge in this situation is NOT OK.

Oh hell yes it is. An eye for an eye I say. World would be a better AND SAFER place...

Jument:I am frequently amazed at how stupid most "bad guys" seem to be. We're freakin' lucky for that. If the bad guys were serious we would have an Oklahoma City every week and we've be royally farked.

Tatsuma:I will admit that when I got to the 'see how he feels', I stopped reading and rolled my eyes, thinking you were going to defend him like a few people in this thread about being roped into it and really being his big brother's fault

Sincere apologies about that, it wasn't fair of me not to read the rest of your post but answer anyway. Really sorry about that, not something I usually do and won't do it again

No worries. You have been in a position to think about all this stuff a lot more than I have. It's a very emotional issue but my sincere belief is these things are best dealt with by professionals who can (try) to be analytical and preserve the rule of law while doing so. Let me assure everyone that I loathe bombers and believe fully that this young man should never see the light of day. While it's also saddening that a young person wasted HIS own life it is most certainly not his life I am primarily concerned with at the moment. But I do believe we can more effectively deal with and avoid future situations by completely understanding the mindset of the perpetrators. Just seems common sense to me. So I do want to know how he feels and how he got to where he got to. It's important.

There's a big difference between dropping a bomb, walking away, and then letting it explode to kill people, and actively shooting a human being in the face.

And I would imagine there'd be a difference in these kids minds between shooting at a police officer, and killing a civilian.

Obviously, the kids are demented... cops are people too (though lots of people don't act like they are, even people who aren't blowing stuff up), and if you're going to do something that kills innocent people, there should be no difference whether you're pointing the trigger at their faces or leaving a bomb somewhere (though obviously, emotionally, there is, and emotions aren't logical... but we can understand them).

I'm not at all baffled by why the brothers didn't kill the dude, and I am a little weirded out that the article's all 'they made such a mistake by not killing that guy! Silly terrorists.'

Voiceofreason01:or maybe they were confused and angry kids and not the blood thirsty killers that most of you are portraying them as.

/I find this bloodlust from the media, the public and (more worryingly) the government.....distastful

Voiceofreason01:doglover:I'm not a killer. Those "kids" on the other hand put a shrapnel bomb next to a child in a crowd at a public event then shot at cops and killed each-other. They're very much bloodthirsty killers, to the tee.

So maybe we should hold the one still alive without trial so that he can be beaten by the police and sexually assaulted in jail. Which is what a lot of people(even some who should know better) have been suggesting. Sounds like justice to me. Something terrible happened and this kid should face the consequences but we also need to respect his rights and give him a fair trial. Seeking revenge in this situation is NOT OK.

For someone who calls himself "Voice of Reason", you're making a lot of emotionally-fed leaps and accusing people of saying a lot of things they never said. I don't think doglover ever advocated for beating and sexually assaulting this guy.

corronchilejano:Seems the younger brother was trippin' all the way. I'd really like him to just spill the beans on what the whole thing was about. The finish line was targeted because there would be more casualties, but why kill the cop? Seems they were just running around without a plan.

It is just another meat bag of fear and religiousis bullchit.Not worth the bother to figure out, because the ending has already been spoiled.

Tatsuma:bhcompy: Sure, he can use the excuse. It's an affirmative defense and it doesn't pardon his crimes, only lessens the blame from 50/50 to <50, just like any coercion. Proving an affirmative defense can be a difficult thing, and it's just an excuse until he proves it.

And, scientifically, 19 year old brains are still developing and hormones of that age interfere with thought processes(a big reason why very young adult males make ideal soldiers). Again, this doesn't pardon the actions and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but it contributes to the decision making processes and helps with understanding of the "why" so that we can do whatever we can to try and prevent these things from happening in the future.

Poor boy, let's just give him a couple of years in prison and then rehabilitate him, because clearly SCIENCE says he never would have done that if he had only live to grow and become 26 year o-

btraz70:Voiceofreason01: doglover:I'm not a killer. Those "kids" on the other hand put a shrapnel bomb next to a child in a crowd at a public event then shot at cops and killed each-other. They're very much bloodthirsty killers, to the tee.

So maybe we should hold the one still alive without trial so that he can be beaten by the police and sexually assaulted in jail. Which is what a lot of people(even some who should know better) have been suggesting. Sounds like justice to me. Something terrible happened and this kid should face the consequences but we also need to respect his rights and give him a fair trial. Seeking revenge in this situation is NOT OK.

Oh hell yes it is. An eye for an eye I say. World would be a better AND SAFER place...

He's going to get his fair trial, he is going to be found guilty. He should be executed for his crimes. There is no reason in letting this animal live once he's been interrogated and every bit of information that he's able to give has been collected.

The absolute worse punishment we can dish out is life in prison without the chance at parole. At least with a chance at parole, you have something to work for, something to hope for. With death there is an end date. With life without parole, that's an unknown amount of decades where you will be in the hell that is prison without it ever ended. Even when it's 23 hours a day of solitude in a supermax, it's still 23 a day in a small cage alone, might as well be dead at that point.

Put a needle in his arm and end his life. He ended the life of 3 people without a second thought when those bombs went off. I think he killed another Thursday night. His life should end, and we should give him the same thought he gave those others. None.

JohnBigBootay:He didn't say that. Boy, you're getting a little derpy all the sudden. Gee, I wonder how the IDF have become so effective at spotting terrorists. It's almost like they have engaged heavily in the kind of analysis bhcompy is talking about...

It is completely bullshiat to use biology in any capacity to excuse the actions of the guy.

Saying that, 'being 19' his brain has not fully formed the way it should be and therefore- is bullshiat. We're not talking about a 10 year old, but a 19 year old.

I've seen plenty of people trying to use this excuse with him and I'm sorry, he was farking 19 year old, he wasn't a kid and he knew fully well what he was doing, and he wasn't some malleable puppy who was abused by his older brother who roped him into this

Tatsuma:EdNortonsTwin: I'd imagine murdering someone at close range, up-close and personal, as in during a carjacking probably takes a considerable degree of courage. It's not like pressing a button several yards from your victim(s).

That's exactly what they did to the cop. That's exactly what they did to the victims when they put down the bombs right next to them while looking them in the eyes.

The reason they didn't kill the driver is because he was not an American and they only wanted to kill Americans

Bullshiat. That makes no sense at all. The Boston Marathon is an international event. They had no reason to believe that the crowd in which they detonated the bombs would only be American. In fact, one of the dead was Chinese.

Great Janitor:He's going to get his fair trial, he is going to be found guilty. He should be executed for his crimes. There is no reason in letting this animal live once he's been interrogated and every bit of information that he's able to give has been collected.

The absolute worse punishment we can dish out is life in prison without the chance at parole.

That's a good argument against execution, though (not to mention the lack of free appeal). He's 19. Keeping him alive for a nice, long life would be much worse.

sweatybronson:There's a big difference between dropping a bomb, walking away, and then letting it explode to kill people, and actively shooting a human being in the face.

And I would imagine there'd be a difference in these kids minds between shooting at a police officer, and killing a civilian.

Obviously, the kids are demented... cops are people too (though lots of people don't act like they are, even people who aren't blowing stuff up), and if you're going to do something that kills innocent people, there should be no difference whether you're pointing the trigger at their faces or leaving a bomb somewhere (though obviously, emotionally, there is, and emotions aren't logical... but we can understand them).

I'm not at all baffled by why the brothers didn't kill the dude, and I am a little weirded out that the article's all 'they made such a mistake by not killing that guy! Silly terrorists.'

Seems like every swinging dong with a buttload of movie experience is an expert on Actual Rogue Going.Folks, going full retard is not such a neato thingie, unlike in the movies.

btraz70:Voiceofreason01: doglover:I'm not a killer. Those "kids" on the other hand put a shrapnel bomb next to a child in a crowd at a public event then shot at cops and killed each-other. They're very much bloodthirsty killers, to the tee.

So maybe we should hold the one still alive without trial so that he can be beaten by the police and sexually assaulted in jail. Which is what a lot of people(even some who should know better) have been suggesting. Sounds like justice to me. Something terrible happened and this kid should face the consequences but we also need to respect his rights and give him a fair trial. Seeking revenge in this situation is NOT OK.

Oh hell yes it is. An eye for an eye I say. World would be a better AND SAFER place...

Grammy HeartBurn used to say "An eye for an eye, and the whole world is blind."

kindms:He's not a suspect. There's no ambiguity here. Hang him upside down and rip his fingernails off and then shoot him in the back of the head with no trial for all I care. You can hug and kiss his corpse if you like.

You FAIL at being an American. The only difference between our nation and every other in the world is the document by which it was founded. That document clearly lays out what accused criminals deserve when facing charges by the state.

People like you who easily cast that aside for convenience and / or revenge do more harm to this once great nation compared to all terrorists combined. Instead of steadfastly holding to our convictions as a nation in the face of adversity the majority cowers and demands its pound of flesh.

Exactly. We said he needs to get a fair trial, not a particularly lengthy or complicated one. Try not to be too outraged, but be prepared for this kid to plea out in exchange for information about who radicalized his brother, and other people who may be risks. He won't get away entirely, but be prepared for some kind of very long sentence with no trial, to avoid the hassle of proving sanity and whether his brother brainwashed him.

Voiceofreason01:doglover:I'm not a killer. Those "kids" on the other hand put a shrapnel bomb next to a child in a crowd at a public event then shot at cops and killed each-other. They're very much bloodthirsty killers, to the tee.

So maybe we should hold the one still alive without trial so that he can be beaten by the police and sexually assaulted in jail. Which is what a lot of people(even some who should know better) have been suggesting. Sounds like justice to me. Something terrible happened and this kid should face the consequences but we also need to respect his rights and give him a fair trial. Seeking revenge in this situation is NOT OK.

Doglover did not talk about holding him with no trial.

If those people want to talk about how they would cut his nutz off to exact their revenge, then let them.You know why they are different? They are only talk or thinking about doing an act like that. They don't go out and do it.

Tatsuma:snowshovel: Except that wasn't part of the original plan. If they wanted to do that, they would've bombed the start of the race, then did a happy dance yelling "Hey look at me! I did it!" as police swarmed the area.

The cop confrontation thing only happened when they realized that their carefully crafted plan "to blow random people up" (which, really, is the easy part of the plan), didn't include "and get away with it" beyond trying to resume life as normal. They had absolutely no intent on confronting anybody. At least until it became obvious that they were toast.

I wrote the 'code' of what they planned to do earlier, basically more and more bombings until the FBI would be closing in, and then go out in a blaze of glory. They wanted to kill as many people as they could before they died.

namegoeshere:Tatsuma: EdNortonsTwin: I'd imagine murdering someone at close range, up-close and personal, as in during a carjacking probably takes a considerable degree of courage. It's not like pressing a button several yards from your victim(s).

That's exactly what they did to the cop. That's exactly what they did to the victims when they put down the bombs right next to them while looking them in the eyes.

The reason they didn't kill the driver is because he was not an American and they only wanted to kill Americans

Bullshiat. That makes no sense at all. The Boston Marathon is an international event. They had no reason to believe that the crowd in which they detonated the bombs would only be American. In fact, one of the dead was Chinese.

You'd figure if they wanted to only target white people they wouldn't do it at an event that has runners representing 97 countries.

Tatsuma:It is completely bullshiat to use biology in any capacity to excuse the actions of the guy.

Saying that, 'being 19' his brain has not fully formed the way it should be and therefore- is bullshiat. We're not talking about a 10 year old, but a 19 year old.

I've seen plenty of people trying to use this excuse with him and I'm sorry, he was farking 19 year old, he wasn't a kid and he knew fully well what he was doing, and he wasn't some malleable puppy who was abused by his older brother who roped him into this

I just don;t think he was making an excuse - he went on to say,Again, this doesn't pardon the actions and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but it contributes to the decision making processes and helps with understanding of the "why" so that we can do whatever we can to try and prevent these things from happening in the future.

JohnBigBootay:No worries. You have been in a position to think about all this stuff a lot more than I have. It's a very emotional issue

Yeah that's the thing for me, it is really emotional because the scenes we saw in Boston, those use to be daily scenes in Israel. Down to the smallest detail.

So when I see people trying to mitigate or defend that kind of evil, it makes me fly off the handle. It's not a good reason enough to lose my cool, I should be more careful and less emotional, and if I can't, step away from the keyboard until I can.

JohnBigBootay:my sincere belief is these things are best dealt with by professionals who can (try) to be analytical and preserve the rule of law while doing so. Let me assure everyone that I loathe bombers and believe fully that this young man should never see the light of day. While it's also saddening that a young person wasted HIS own life it is most certainly not his life I am primarily concerned with at the moment. But I do believe we can more effectively deal with and avoid future situations by completely understanding the mindset of the perpetrators. Just seems common sense to me. So I do want to know how he feels and how he got to where he got to. It's important.

Oh trust me, I understand this completely, and I agree 100%

The problem is that the people calling him a kid and saying he was roped into this, this is not what they are doing. They are apologizing for the guy, they are defending him, they are not trying to find the root causes of what could lead a guy with a bright future to do that, they just remove all responsibility and therefore guilt from him.

The fact that he was 19 and going to college and was bright is not something that makes him in any way different from most suicide bombers and terrorists. Studies show clearly that terrorists and their supporters usually come from higher educated backgrounds with affluent means. The more money you have, the better education you have, the second you throw fundamentalist Islam in the mix it creates a deadly poison where terrorism is absolutely justified.

This is the opposite where the poorest and least educated segments of the population will adamantly against using violence and terrorism.

Theaetetus:Great Janitor: He's going to get his fair trial, he is going to be found guilty. He should be executed for his crimes. There is no reason in letting this animal live once he's been interrogated and every bit of information that he's able to give has been collected.

The absolute worse punishment we can dish out is life in prison without the chance at parole.

That's a good argument against execution, though (not to mention the lack of free appeal). He's 19. Keeping him alive for a nice, long life would be much worse.

People in this thread have mentioned mercy for this killer. Mercy would be execution.

We give this guy the death penalty and the recruiters back home will tell the next young hothead who can't get laid here on Earth that the Tsarnaev brothers are in Allah's great houri house. So no. Put him in the darkest cell in the Federal prison system and throw away the key. The houris can wait.

scottydoesntknow:namegoeshere: Tatsuma: EdNortonsTwin: I'd imagine murdering someone at close range, up-close and personal, as in during a carjacking probably takes a considerable degree of courage. It's not like pressing a button several yards from your victim(s).

That's exactly what they did to the cop. That's exactly what they did to the victims when they put down the bombs right next to them while looking them in the eyes.

The reason they didn't kill the driver is because he was not an American and they only wanted to kill Americans

Bullshiat. That makes no sense at all. The Boston Marathon is an international event. They had no reason to believe that the crowd in which they detonated the bombs would only be American. In fact, one of the dead was Chinese.

You'd figure if they wanted to only target white people they wouldn't do it at an event that has runners representing 97 countries.

A little hint, don't try to understand batchit crazy, it is contagious.Don't try to integrate it into a sane framework, there is none.

Tatsuma:I wrote the 'code' of what they planned to do earlier, basically more and more bombings until the FBI would be closing in, and then go out in a blaze of glory. They wanted to kill as many people as they could before they died.

To come back to the thread topic, then, either their plan to do so wasn't very good, or they deviated from it with no apparent reason.

Surely they could have done much more damage going underground and changing cities. And/or taking a bunch of hostages and exploding when their capture was inevitable.

bhcompy:Tatsuma: bhcompy: The 19 year old can use this excuse, also the "following his older brother/mentor" excuse.

No he can't. Read the post I wrote about this.

Sure, he can use the excuse. It's an affirmative defense and it doesn't pardon his crimes, only lessens the blame from 50/50 to <50, just like any coercion. Proving an affirmative defense can be a difficult thing, and it's just an excuse until he proves it.

And, scientifically, 19 year old brains are still developing and hormones of that age interfere with thought processes(a big reason why very young adult males make ideal soldiers). Again, this doesn't pardon the actions and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but it contributes to the decision making processes and helps with understanding of the "why" so that we can do whatever we can to try and prevent these things from happening in the future.

When talking about brain development, there is a MASSIVE difference between things like maturity of the temporal lobe vs synaptic pruning, and synaptic pruning. That's a really *bad* premise to absolve responsibility to any degree at all.

Neither was the Chinese girl they killed. They didn't give a shiat who in that crowd they blew up. It's not like they set the bombs off in the Americans Only section of the international sporting event.

Tatsuma:EdNortonsTwin: I'd imagine murdering someone at close range, up-close and personal, as in during a carjacking probably takes a considerable degree of courage. It's not like pressing a button several yards from your victim(s).

That's exactly what they did to the cop. That's exactly what they did to the victims when they put down the bombs right next to them while looking them in the eyes.

The reason they didn't kill the driver is because he was not an American and they only wanted to kill Americans

Except triggering an IED and shooting at police while yards away are notexactly personal like shooting a car jacking victim would be.

I say these punks are miserable cowards.

And enough of this "they're brown" so people are wanting to treat them differently than if they were white. These shiat stains are caucasians.

Voiceofreason01:or maybe they were confused and angry kids and not the blood thirsty killers that most of you are portraying them as.

/I find this bloodlust from the media, the public and (more worryingly) the government.....distastful

I find the bloodlust totally understandable - and subsiding.

Also, your calling a 26 year old man a 'kid' is what i find...distasteful.

Why are you trying to make them sympathetic? Are they themselves victims? Sounds like you believe that. And while I can understand having pity for the 19 year old, having been a stupid 19 year old myself, i don't sympathize with them at all.

JohnBigBootay:StaleCoffee: That's a really *bad* premise to absolve responsibility to any degree at all.

Which I'm pretty sure he did not do.

Then what was the point of trotting it out at all? He says it doesn't pardon the actions but helps to understand "why" but understanding the "why" there because of the brain failing to reach full maturity implies a lack of reasoning ability somehow. Otherwise understanding the "why" would follow the same causal pattern of anyone else, which makes the whole "brain not fully developed at 19" utterly irrelevant.

Because everyone is so angry they did read the next sentence in which he explicitly said in plain english, "Again, this doesn't pardon the actionsand they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. "

The fault lies with the reader there, not the writer, who explained himself clearly.